Stanley v. Cryer Drilling Co.
Stanley v. Cryer Drilling Co., 36 So. 2d 9 (La. 1948).
Cited by
Distinguished in 1
- Mahaffey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 679 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
- Panzico v. Price 647 So. 2d 1154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
- Galjour v. Security Industrial Insurance Co. 618 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
- Sam v. Delta Downs, Inc. 564 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
- Benton v. Long Mfg. NC, Inc. 550 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
- Thomas v. Kilgore 537 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
- Coates v. Northlake Oil Co., Inc. 499 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
- Lucas v. Deville 385 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
- Sherville v. NATIONAL U. FIRE INS. CO., ETC. 387 So. 2d 1181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
- LeJeune v. Allstate Ins. Co. 365 So. 2d 471 La. 1978
- Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. 340 So. 2d 293 La. 1976
- Jones v. Falcon 297 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Stanley v. Cryer Drilling Co. 29 So. 2d 810
- Parks v. Hall 189 La. 849
- Haeuser v. &198tna Casualty Surety Co. 187 So. 684
- Farnet v. Decuers 195 So. 797
- 29 So. 2d 814 not in our corpus
- James v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc. 177 La. 1033
- Stephenson v. List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. 186 La. 11
- Goldberg Auction Co. v. Purvin 4 So. 2d 247
- Clemons v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. 18 So. 2d 228
Opinion text
HAWTHORNE, Justice (dissenting), I think the opinion of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, correctly disposes of the issue in this case and the judgment rendered by that court should, be reinstated and made the judgment of this court. See Stanley et al. v. Cryer Drilling Co. et al. (Associated Indemnity Corporation, Intervenor), La.App., 29 So.2d 810 . *991 The majority opinion in the instant case cites with full approval the case of Parks v. Hall et al., 189 La. 849 , 181 So. 191 . There is some doubt in my mind as to the correctness of this court’s holding in that case. However, the Court of Appeal, in my judgment, clearly distinguished this case as well as other cases cited in the opinion of that court (Haeuser v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. et al., La.App., 187 So. 684 ; Farnet v. DeCuers et al., La.App., 195 So. 797 ) from the instant case, and in doing so said [La.App., 29 So.2d 814 ] : “There is a fundamental difference between the facts of the three cited cases, in each of which the insurer was held liable under the omnibus clause, and the facts of the present case, and it is this: in neither of the three cited cases had the employee delivered the car to the owner’s garage, as directed, before involving it in an accident, whereas in the present case, the truck had been delivered to its usual parking place, after working hours, and some eight hours thereafter was involved in an accident when being used solely for the employee’s pleasure. We think this difference in facts pivotal. * * * * * * ‘“It is a legal certainty that if Robinson had been required at the end of each day’s work to put the truck in a designated garage of- Cryer’s, and he had done so the' day of the accident, and thereafter, without the knowledge or consent of Cryer, removed it from the garage and had an accident, the coverage provision of the policy would not have protected him. James et al. v. J. S. Williams & Son, Inc., 177 La. 1033 , 150 So. 9 ; Stephenson v. List Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., et al., 186 La. 11 , 171 So. 556 ; Wilson v. Farnsworth et al., La.App., 4 So.2d 247 ; Clemons et al. v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Company et al., La.App., 18 So.2d 228 .” I respectfully dissent.